will they do the same for overweight employees too?
I am a non smoker but I oppose smoking bans in general, but in bars in particulars. That said, smoking is a stupid and unhealthy habit and it’s not wrong to charge more for those who will likely cost more to insure.
Now, with that said, I think that homosexual males should be required substantially more. Those who participate in high risk recreational activities should also pay more.
If they are going to charge for ‘risk’, all risks should be so charged.
What if you smoke only 2 times a year? Are you going to be compelled to pay up?
What if it's 20 cigarettes a year
What if it's one cigarette and they enforce it?
Would second hand smoke count? What if you live with a smoker? What if you went out to a club and walked by someone who smoked? Will they enforce this with blood tests (might actually be viable)?
Just curious...
NOW...Let's talk about other unhealthy lifestyles. This is South Florida. Has anyone used a public restroom in Fort Lauderdale recently? For it's intended purpose?
How much does AIDs cost the average health insurance holder? Why should we cover that sort of risky lifestyle?
I think if you have anonymous homosexual sex, you are increasing your exposure and risk to contract HIV. Can we charge an extra $100 a month for that? I mean, I didn't make them do that... Why should I pay to subsidize it?
The principle will be extended to any group which is believed to be politically weak, socially estranged and vulnerable, and without viable alternative choices.
Never be the the last guy in the pecking order, if you can help it.
A program to return the insured to a "healthy" weight will be next. Your weight will be recorded and your premium will be surcharged according to the percentage out of range you are.
They wouldn’t dare charge more for homosexuals due to the higher risk of AIDS, would they?
this would resolve many issues including the ages-old discriminatory practice of providing more health-care benefits to people with families than to single employees.
I know a fellow who like to play basketball.
He has ripped a hamstring twice now. Should people who play sports be charged more?
What if little Bobby or Suzie are on the school sports squad?
This entire plan is BS. Everyone participates in some degree of risky behavior just by being alive.
A couple of billion folks are about to head out on to the highway in the dark to rush to work or school. I’m sure everyone will arrive in one piece /sarc
What about fat people? It seems that this company (some might call it a fascist organization) will implement next a Body Mass Index metric - anyone over a 25 BMI has to pay a $100/month per excess point surcharge. I suspect that this charge will not stand up to legal challenge but the way the liberal courts are these days, who knows.
Why not? Insurance prices are a measure of risk, and a smoker is more of a health risk than a non-smoker. After all, I pay a lot higher premium for the life insurance my company offers than someone 20 years younger.
What about extreme sports enthusiasts? Or folks who ride bikes in traffic? Or even riskier stuff?
I can see the justification, but it ought to be fairly applied. Also, how do the companies find out which employees are risky?
dont like it....work somewhere else
I have seen companies that were in layoff modes create all kinds of new rules, such as "No parking withing 500' of the building", etc. simply to lower morale and increase turnover and voluntary early retirements and resignations.
Chubbies will be next.
Somebody has to pay for all that 'free' health care so many people seem to want.
(s)
I would like to charge more if:
do you own guns? (guns are a health issue)
do you recycle? (the environment is a health issue)
do you listen to talk radio? (conservative radio is a stress health issue)
do you drive a car or use the bus? (driving a car is a health issue)
Are you married with children? (families are a health issue, employees with no life or distractions help the business.)
Did you submit your DNA test?
(/s)
perhaps the sun sentinal should have an alternative lifestyle tax. They were the ones attacking the mayor for his opposition to sexual activity in public bathrooms!
A slippery slope created by Lawyers, emptying the "Big Tobacco" deep pockets.
It's sorta like paying for Auto Insurance until you file a claim, and then you become un-insurable (not literally, but your rates go through the roof).
People do NOT realize where this is headed, and the cross-subsidization of others who choose not to pay for Medical Insurance, coupled with those who have been promised a "medical care right under the Constitution" (to be paid for by someone else via taxing the crap out of 'em), is furtherance of the socilaist agenda, pure and simple.
If I paid for Medical Insurance my entire life, smoked all throughout that period, and now, as a baby boomer, I'm reaching the age where medical problems DO occur due to aging (not including the smoking), NOW, after all those DECADES of paying my way, I am denied coverage because the government says I am a RISK, and I am FORCED to pay for sex deviates (AIDS), women of child-bearing age (PRE-NATAL and NATAL care), fatasses (over-eaters annonymous/irresponsible lifestyle), risk takers (sky-divers, bungee jumpers, motorcyclists), alchohol abusers, drug abusers, etc., etc.?
Where is the fairness here? Sounds like ex-post facto (changes after-the-fact) to the rules, whereby when you become a "risk", you are now denied the benefits you have subsidized all along.
I'll pay my own way, take the risks I deem acceptable, and YOU do the same. Your Liberal-guilt is not something you should satisfy with MY money!
What insurance company is involved here?
Is this just the foot-in-the-door?
Sure_fine while the company hasn't started charging overweight employees more yet, employees who go through a health screening that measures body mass index, blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol get an additional premium reduction.
Logical consequences, people.